Tuesday, June 25, 2013

The West should intervene in Syria for many reasons. One is to stem the rise of Persian power

    Tuesday, June 25, 2013   No comments

The growing risk of a nuclear Iran is one reason why the West should intervene decisively in Syria not just by arming the rebels, but also by establishing a no-fly zone. That would deprive Mr Assad of his most effective weapon—bombs dropped from planes—and allow the rebels to establish military bases inside Syria. This newspaper has argued many times for doing so on humanitarian grounds; but Iran’s growing clout is another reason to intervene, for it is not in the West’s interest that a state that sponsors terrorism and rejects Israel’s right to exist should become the regional hegemon.

The West still has the economic and military clout to influence events in the region, and an interest in doing so. When Persian power is on the rise, it is not the time to back away from the Middle East.

read more from the article... , or read a sample from Readers' Comment below:

wow... I'm kind of stunned. I understand everyone has a bias but this article is seriously crossing the line. For the Economist to remain respected surely it has to really check what it's preaching.

From what I have read, you are advocating increasing the weapons supply in one country (therefore the carnage, loss of life etc..) so that you can affect things in an entirely different country (Iran). On top of that the only reason for doing this is so that another small country (Israel) remains militarily supreme in the region.

In other words your willing to use the lives of Syrian people so that Israel can dictate to it's neighbors how things are.

This is not some xbox game, these are real people you advocating "sacrificing" for some greater political good of another country. That's kind of nuts.

How about this... If Israel wants that supremacy. Why doesn't it go to Iran and directly fight it out and put its own people on the line rather than "use" the Syrians?

It's like you (Economist) are willing to put up with any level of destruction or any country as long as Israel can be top dog. It's such a strange position to take.

Israel have enough military power to defend themselves against anyone. So what if other nations get better weapons? Does it mean Israel cannot defend it self? Or do they think every country around them has a suicidal death wish and they just cant wait for everyone to be nuked?

It feels like the west/israel want the ability to impose themselves on others rather than defend their right to exist. That seems kind of mad, and dare I say it, evil in itself.

Isr Ed

About Isr Ed

Islamic Societies Review Editors

Next Post
No comments:
Write comments

Most popular articles

All Referred Articles


Copyright © Islamic Societies Review. All rights reserved.